INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENT AGAINST ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATIONAND RACISM (IMADR)

REPORT ON THE SECOND SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE ON THE WORLD CONFERENCE AGAINST RACISM, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, XENOPHOBIA

AND RELATED INTOLERANCEPlenary Session

21-25 May and 1 June (PM) 2001Geneva, Switzerland

Aleksandra Delic, intern, IMADR-UN OfficeCarolina de Fey, intern, IMADR-UN Office

(Note: this is an unofficial report prepared by the monitoring team of IMADR-UN Office for the use of NGOs following the WCAR process. The main purpose of the report is to give an idea for the NGOs about such questions as who introduced which new paragraphs/language and who was interested in what issues; it is by no means meant to serve as an official record of the actual discussion, and IMADR-UN Office does not assume a responsibility for any inaccurate summary of a statement wherever exist)

*****

Monday, 21 May, 2001, Morning Session

Chairperson (Senegal)She pointing out that a great work had been done since the first Preparatory Committee. A lot remains to be achieved. There are less than four months to go, and the text still requires a lot of work. Constructive approach is necessary. Instead of arguing every detail up to Durban, the alternative is to look for common ground. Madam Chair further expressed her convictions the consensus would be reached. Durban is a serious and honest addressing of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Its aim is to shape a new vision and embrace diversity.

Mrs. Mary Robinson (reproduction of her speech)Chairperson,Excellencies,Distinguished Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen, Today marks a critical point in the build up to the World Conference in Durban. Today we start the final phase of preparation. A great deal of work has been done since I addressed the first preparatory committee meeting last may. We can all share a sense of achievement at the outcome of the regional meetings, the expert seminars, the work at national level. These did not succeed by chance – they were the product of a lot of effort and commitment on the part of a large number of people including many of you present today. That should be a source of pride for all of us. 

Now we must look forward to Durban and the most intensive phase of our work. 

I should say straightaway that I feel a lot still remains to be achieved. Progress on drafting the final declaration and programme of action has been slower than many had hoped. With less than four months to go before the World Conference the text before us sill requires a great deal of work. That makes your contribution over the coming weeks vital. I am counting on every delegate, every State, every regional group to bring a constructive approach to this preparatory committee so that as much progress as possible is made over the next fortnight.  

1

Delegates, it seems to me that we face a choice here. We can take the narrow view and argue every detail right up to Durban. But that will not set the scene for a successful conference, quite the contrary. 

The alternative is to follow the path that has been the hallmark of every successful world conference – to look for the common ground. I am convinced that consensus positions can be found on much of the text under discussion to which all delegations can rally. The challenge, which faces us over the next weeks, is to identify these areas of consensus and rationalise them into agreed text. Of course there will not be agreement on everything. Some issues will call for extra effort to resolve through further consultations after the Prepcom or perhaps at Durban itself. But let us use the coming weeks to distinguish between what can be agreed on by all and to narrow down the critical issues and paragraphs that call for special attention. 

That would be the best use of our time and would set the scene for a successful conference. The choice we face has not only to do with drafting, it concerns the sort of event we want Durban to be. I know what I would like it to be: a serious and honest addressing of the past realities of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance combined with a reinvigorated commitment to address the contemporary scourges. I would like us to achieve a break through in perceptions about racism and shape a new vision that will embrace the diversity of the human family in the future. 

The drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights had a similar task – crafting a shared vision for the future. We can draw inspiration from their commitment to address the immediate past of devastating war and move forward embracing different views, finding common ground. Eleanor Roosevelt is said to have ended each night with a prayer: “show us a vision of a world made new.” Human rights have given us that vision. Durban gives us the opportunity, at the start of a new century, to help bring about a “world made new”. 

We must never lose sight of those who are victims of racism and racial discrimination and who will be looking to the Durban conference to help bring about real change in their lives. As I reflect on the past year it is this human dimension that remains at the forefront of my mind. The human dimension was present in distinctive ways at all of the regional preparatory meetings. 

In Strasbourg the chief focus was on the big increase in the movement of people from the poor countries to the rich, developed countries. I deplored the fact that so many who come to Europe receive a cold or even hostile reception, indeed, are hardly treated a s human beings.

Manifestations of racism and xenophobia have become commonplace. I noted that in some ways the problem is the same as it ever was: hatred based on fear – fear of economic competition, fear of loss of identity. In other respects, the patterns of modern racism are worryingly different with racial attacks in countries enjoying economic prosperity and racism appearing in parts of Europe where it had not been evident before. 

At the African regional meeting in Dakar I paid homage to the millions of children, women and men who have been the victims of slavery. No other continent has had such a widespread and prolonged struggle to fight racism in the form of apartheid and no other continent has borne the brunt of racism as much as Africa. That legacy of racism, colonialism and slavery is an issue which the Durban Conference must tackle head on with a view to coming to terms with the past, the better to face into the future, I also recall the discussion at the Addis Ababa regional expert seminar about the very high level of conflict which Africa has seen and which continues to this day, with an appalling toll in human misery. I urged that attention be paid to combating racism in the context of devising preventive strategies to head off ethnic conflicts. 

In Santiago I was struck by the great cultural and racial diversity which distinguishes the Americas and which is a source of pride for many. At the same time, I was acutely conscious of the voices of those – poor and marginalized – who have been left out. Despite the enormous technological,

2

industrial and agricultural achievements, structural inequalities in wealth and income and the close association between racial discrimination and extreme poverty define many of the problems of racism and xenophobia in the Americans and the Caribbean. An issue that emerged clearly at Santiago was the need for greater attention to those of African descent in Latin America and the Caribbean. I drew particular attention to those of African descent in Latin America and the Caribbean. I drew particular attention to the situation of indigenous peoples. The colonial conquest resulted in massive loss of life of the indigenous inhabitants of the region, the loss of their lands, forced conversion to foreign religions, and attempts to suppress indigenous languages and cultures. The sufferings of indigenous peoples endure to this day. The Durban conference and the establishment of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous issues offer them real hope of recognition and of change. 

The chief message I sought to convey at the Teheran meeting was the pervasive nature of racism and the danger of denial. I pointed out that no region, no country and no community can claim to be free from racism and intolerance. Acceptance of that fact is the first step towards addressing the problem. A particular concern in the region – as it is for all of us – is the rise in trafficking in human beings. Women migrants are especially vulnerable. Isolated from their own community and family, they can be exposed to violence or other forms of abuse and usually have little or no means of remedy or redress at their disposal. The plight of migrant and trafficked women and the whole nexus of gender and racism are legitimate topics for the Durban Conference to consider. 

I feel I should mention, too, the regional expert seminar held in Warsaw last July which had as its theme the protection of minorities and other vulnerable groups. This is an issue which has relevance within and beyond Eastern European region. Preventing discrimination against, and protecting the rights of persons belonging to national, ethnic and religious minorities, of indigenous populations, refugees and migrants – these are challenges that face all of the international community. The Warsaw seminar also focused on another important topic for Durban: how to improve the situation of the Roma, Sinti and traveller communities. 

The preparatory meetings for Durban have raised our awareness of the extensive ways in which racism and xenophobia blight people’s lives. Among the ugly examples of racism in daily life which we hear about regularly in the media or which have become so routine as to hardly merit a mention are: assaults and killings on racist grounds, attacks on places of worship – be they churches, temples, synagogues or mosques – racism in the workplace, racist attitudes among law enforcement officers, racial profiling, discrimination in housing and access to social facilities…the list is long. 

Can we not look to the Durban Conference to confront there issues and to come up with a blueprint for how to address them more effectively? Is that not what this conference should be about? 

As I read the document, which has been assembled after the last meeting of the open-ended working group, I was struck by the number of areas of agreement rather than of difference: 

The draft declaration and programme of action have had their first reading, thought it must be said that the discussions so far have added greatly to the length of the document. 

Many of the issues under discussion are not controversial and can command broad agreement. Who could argue against the urgency of identifying practical ways of helping the victims of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, including all those categories of victims referred to at the regional preparatory meetings? Who will say that we would not step up measures of prevention, education and protection at the national, regional and international levels? Would anyone seriously oppose the strengthening of our strategies to achieve full and effective equality, including international cooperation and enhancement of the United Nations and other international mechanisms to combat racism? 

The measures to combat racism at national, regional and international level encompass such areas as racism on the internet, the role of the media, racism and poverty, the role of NGOs and youth, the

3

gender perspective, children, disadvantaged groups, the issues surrounding migration, trafficking, asylum seekers, refugees and IDPs, as well as other disadvantaged groups. I am confident it is well within our capabilities to find language to map out strategies to deal with all of these issues and to find appropriate remedies. 

All must agree that provision for effective follow up to the World Conference is essential including measures to monitor ratification of relevant instruments and especially ICERD and full implementation by all States. We can also agree to strengthen national mechanisms, which seek to promote the fight against racism. 

Education that promotes tolerance and celebrates diversity is a vital instrument in the fight against racism and xenophobia. I am sure that there will be broad support for stepping up educational activities at all levels – of children and young people especially but also appropriate training of persons in areas such as law enforcement, the courts and public employees. 

In the area of remedies, recourse, redress, compensatory and other measures for victims of racism constructive suggestions have been put forward. I feel that we can find common ground. 

Chairperson, the challenge for us is clear. I believe that together we can find language, which adequately expresses the shared, will of the international community in regard to all of these matters and which takes account of the concerns of all delegates. But the clock is ticking. A number of procedural proposals have been made with the aim of expediting the preparatory work. I urge that these be approached in a constructive manner. 

As I said already, some issues of particular sensitivity have emerged which we will probably have to carry forward for discussion in Durban. All that I will say at this stage is to stress again my hope that Durban will be seen as having marked a breakthrough in approaches to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; that all States will confront the crimes and unjust practices of the past together, and that ways will be identified to address these issues comprehensively. I want to see a World Conference, which sets a new context for the struggle to combat racism, which fosters reconciliation and which is forward looking. At the Millennium Summit, States committed themselves “to eliminate the increasing acts of racism and xenophobia in many societies and to promote greater harmony in all societies.” That is the objective we should keep before us and we should not allow current pressures, however serious, to hinder the process by introducing language contrary to a forward-looking, conciliatory spirit. 

I am glad to be able to report that the practical arrangements for the World Conference are well in train. I would like to pay tribute to the Government of South Africa for the professionalism of its approach. I believe that a close, cooperative relationship has been established with my Office, which bodes well for the organisation of the conference’s work. I appeal to delegates to ensure that adequate financial support is made available to the government of South Africa in response to its generous gesture in hosting the conference. 

An NGO Forum is being organised by the South African National NGO Coalition (SANGOCO) from 28 August to 1st September. Recognising the vital importance of civil society’s role in the conference, funding will be made available to several hundred non-governmental organisations to enable them to participate at the Forum and in the conference itself. A wide range of special events is planned for Durban: 

There will be a Special Forum on the Voices of Victims and a media dialogue on racism and indigenous peoples.

A Youth Summit will be held in Durban on 27 August in collaboration with several major youth groups and SANGOCO.

4

Representatives of Treaty Bodies, Special Mechanisms and National Institutions will all participate in panels and other events.

Interagency consultations are taking place with members of the UN family; events highlighting children, gender dimensions of racial discrimination, racism in the workplace, human rights and development are being planned with the cooperation of UNICEF, UNDP, ILO, UNESCO and others. There will be a high level panel on the role of the private sector in fostering diversity, set in the framework of the Secretary-General’s Global Compact initiative.

The Inter-Parliamentary Union will hold a one-day meeting of parliamentarians on hate speech.

Academic institutions including the International Sociological Association and the University of Peace plan to hold round table sessions.

A number of exhibitions and cultural events will focus on racism  On the information front, I believe that the importance of the Durban Conference is beginning to be understood by the international community but I am aware that much more needs to be done. I ask delegates to continue to impress on national governments the importance of highlighting the conference and bringing it to the attention of the public and the media. For our part, we will be stepping up our public information activities over the coming months. 

Chairperson, Distinguished delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen, 

It is within our power to make Durban a groundbreaking event that really changes peoples’ lives. Moving away from our differences, getting along better – these are not the key issues for Durban. The issues at stake are more fundamental: what should we do in every community, in every nation and in the community of nations to create a new context where everyone is treated fairly, equally and with dignity, irrespective of colour, race, gender, nationality or religious belief? Durban must summon up our collective will to make genuine respect for the dignity of every individual and equal opportunities for a reality. Archbishop Desmond Tutu said here a month ago: 

“We…human beings are created for fellowship, for togetherness, for family, for community, for interdependence, for complementarity…We should celebrate our diversity, we should exult in our differences as making not for separation and alienation and hostility but for their glorious opposites…There is room for everyone; there is room for every culture, race, language and point of view.” 

The challenge we face at Durban will be to conclude a declaration and programme of action, which live up to these high ideals. 

Thank You. 

ChairpersonShe thanked the High Commissioner and expressed her appreciation for the address. She then pointed out the Second Session of the preparatory committee is opening, and in the next two weeks to prepare for Durban, where the international community enters into commitment against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The first possibility, suggested by Madam Chairperson on working methods, was to break into two separate working groups for draft declaration and draft programme of action. Another possibility was a single committee, in order to facilitate the work of small delegations, which are not in the position to split. The Bureau recommended that first all meet in single plenary and on Friday, 25 May, the Bureau will decide whether there is a need to consider another working method.

The issue of accreditation of NGOs was raised. Namely, six NGOs had their request for accreditation challenged by particular states. These NGOs are: 

5

Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact Human Rights in China International Campaign for Tibet People Forum for Human Rights Development Tamil Centre for Human Rights Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy

 The Secretariat recommended these NGOs for accreditation since it believes the NGOs have demonstrated their competence and relevance for the Conference. Mrs. Wiseberg, NGO Liaison, stated that the morning session started later due to consultations on this matter. According to paragraph 48 of the Resolution 1996/31 of the ECOSOC, the span of 24 hours is needed before the decision is taken. Mrs. Wiseberg recommended provisional accreditation to be granted in the meanwhile. 

Mexico The Ambassador of Mexico thanked the High Commissioner for the message. The position of GRULAC is to spare no effort to ensure this is a fruitful session. A request from GRULAC, in accordance with Resolution 1996/31, paragraph 47, was proposed. It states that states must have at least one week before the session to allow the NGO presence. The delegation of Mexico therefore proposed the issue to be pending until the next week, so the delegations are granted enough time. 

Cuba For the six NGOs concerned, Cuba would like to have enough information on them before deciding.

People’s Republic of ChinaWe share the views as expressed by Mexico. 

IraqThere are political motives underlying the inclusion of the NGOs. We support China and Cuba. 

The United States of AmericaSo far, several hundred NGOs had been accredited, only six are contested. We could agree to the suspension until decision made, under the provision that NGOs are given interim accreditation for this week. 

Sri LankaThe Secretariat has recommended accreditation of the six NGOs. We need to know more on decision in favour of this and in the meanwhile we do not support interim accreditation. 

IranWe support previous speakers, and propose postponing the issue until next Monday. The presence of contested NGOs should be after such negotiations and consultations. 

Sweden, on behalf of the European UnionIn the second preparatory committee, we should best use very limited time. NGO accreditation issue needs to be dealt with as soon as possible. The European Union understands the request of some delegations to be granted more time. Also, it is our understanding that organizations recommended by the Secretariat may participate in the week’s meeting even though there is postponement. We take fro granted those NGOs will be given interim participation. 

SudanWe feel we should not rush into decision regarding participation. We support Mexico, Cuba, China and Sri Lanka that more time is granted. We need more information on the subject. 

Bhutan

6

The preparatory committee has a lot of important work, and we should move on. We are not in favour of NGO presence. 

CanadaWe endorse the US and Sweden. This question needs to be dealt with as soon as possible, and in the meanwhile, a provisional accreditation should be granted. 

CubaWe are dealing now with political manoeuvres of those countries, which do not wish to talk about compensation and rights of indigenous peoples. The committee of the NGOs had rejected the Tamil Centre and we do not understand how can the Secretariat act in this manner. 

India, on behalf of the Asian groupThe recommendations of the Secretariat are contrary to our understanding. 

FranceThis decision needs to be faced immediately or in 24 hours. 

MoroccoIf we really wish to comply with recommendations, then the documentation needs to be obtained. In the spirit of resolution, if there is no solution, the NGOs should be able to attend during the interim period. The discussion on this point needs to be suspended, and consultations have to be entered. The NGO accreditation issue can be discussed at 18:00 hrs, after the plenary. 

SwitzerlandThe Swiss delegation agrees with the US, Canadian, Swedish and French proposals. 

ChinaBefore the commencement of the final discussion, those six NGOs should not be accredited on interim basis. 

Madam ChairpersonIt seems we are having consensus on postponing decision for one week. The Secretariat has to consult on interim participation. Mr. Singh had consulted with the legal office, and since there is no documentation available as of today, one-week postponement is reasonable. Second, the 24-hour period does commence when the prepcom has taken up the recommendations. The 24 hour period will apply as of Monday 28th. If no decision is taken, then the 24 period shall start. Interim accreditation could be granted to the NGOs. Mr. Singh further underlined that the basis for recommendation was the fact that these organizations had established their competence and relevance. 

SwedenThe Secretariat should make available the copy of legal opinion read by Mr. Singh. If we postpone it, we will still disagree on 24-hour period. It should start of now. In the meanwhile, interim accreditation should be granted. 

CubaWe are surprised by the reaction of Sweden. It seems it would be wise to have the reference to the document and all information required with regard to the NGOs, especially on their funding. If by Monday next week we do not have sufficient information, we will object to NGO participation. 

GuatemalaGRULAC made a request with reference to paragraph 47, on week postponement. We feel it is extremely appropriate since we don have all the information required. It seems to be that consensus is emerging in plenary. On paragraph 48, in Spanish version, it says that the 24-hour period starts running after the issue of the recommendations of the Secretariat. Based on the Spanish version, we

7

support the GRULAC proposal, but we do not believe the 24-hour period starts next week. It starts today. In the meanwhile, we have no difficulty accepting interim accreditation. 

DenmarkThe question of NGOs is taking up our time and we should be discussing working methods. We may have to postpone the NGO issue to a later stage and in that case, interim accreditation shall be granted. NGOs have the right to be in this room. 

SyriaThe issue we face here is a very important one. It is clear these organizations are directed by some states against some countries. The position of GRULAC put out by Mexico is a wise one. According to legal opinion, these NGOs can only participate after the 24-hour period have elapsed next week. 

ChileWe wasted a whole morning. We face a very complex situation. Only two weeks of the prepcom are available, and there is only one plenary meeting. We are going to run into serious problems and lose credibility. We support Morocco; the solution must be negotiated, starting this afternoon. 

IraqOne-week rule must be respected. The organizations on the list concern a number of Asian states. Therefore, we support Cuba. 

GuatemalaGRULAC has not had any position on paragraph 48, interim accreditation, and we have no difficulty and motive to discuss legal opinion. 

VenezuelaWe support Chile. It appears clearly there is an emerging consensus on NGOs to allow one week for consultations. We are prepared to go on with any consensus. 

CubaUntil we receive sufficient information, we refuse to take up the decision. The Secretariat proposed to take up the appeal made by Morocco, and suspend to consideration of this subject. The Vice Chairman, the Ambassador of Mexico, will assume responsibility of consultations.

Monday 21 May 2001 Afternoon Session

Chairperson We will start this afternoon session by addressing agenda item 4, which is `the submission of the provisional agenda, venue of the World Conference and practical issues`. 

Mr. Sing I refer on this issue to document A/CONF.189/PC.2/10 of 8 May 2001, which discusses this issue in further detail. 

Chair The delegation of South Africa will be giving a presentation on the practical issues in Durban, in plenary on Tuesday, 22 May 2001.We will now move on to Agenda item 5, which is `the reports of preparatory meetings and activities at the international, regional and national levels.  

Secretariat These papers cover the meetings that have been held at the three different levels. Some of the organising countries of these meetings have comments on this agenda item. 

8

ItalyWe have a few words on the meeting that took place in Strasbourg. The contributions made by NGOs were very important. They had the opportunity to participate at an equal level. Immigration in Europe was a topic, which was high on the agenda.  

SenegalWe hosted the African Regional Conference. We were the first to support and defend the idea of a World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. The Dakar paper gives place to the people that suffered from slavery. Slave trade was a crime against humankind. It had a large scale and institutionalised nature, which made it such a severe crime. The World Conference should solemnly declare the injustices of slavery, slave trade and apartheid. The countries that took part in this severe crime against human kind should make apologies. The Dakar Programme of Action proposes compensation and establishment of a fund for development. Also contemporary forms of racism are included in the Dakar document. We should establish an international monitoring institution.  

Chile In their paper a number of issues have been highlighted. There are two central concepts in the Santiago Document: Developing and developed countries were present. There was a political will to reach consensus on the sensitive issues in the region. There was a feeling of confidence amongst the delegations. The Document followed the logic of the Durban meeting, to be held in South Africa at the end of August this year. The result of the Santiago Document has had repercussions for various groups. We have tried to keep to the themes and structures of the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. The Santiago Programme of Action will be a basis for the combat against Racism. By looking at history we can avoid making the same errors in the present and future.  

IranIn order to save time for the more important discussion on the Draft Declaration and Programme of Action, we would like to refer to document A/CONF.189/PC.2/9, which is the Tehran document. 

Representative of the Indigenous People meeting held in SydneyOur aim was to bring together indigenous peoples. I would like to highlight the racism that is endured by these people. Therefore we ask the Committee to take up in the Draft the text on indigenous people. As the report shows there is a strong link between self-determination and the right of ownership of their land. Indigenous peoples do not have equality with the dominant society people. The report gives seven recommendations and we hope that the Committee will take them up in the Draft.  

Canada In August 2000 the International Youth Forum Against Racism was held in Hanover, Germany. There were 50 youths of 40 countries present at this meeting. At the end of the meeting, three main recommendations were presented: 1. That the Youth Council should be linked with the High Commissioner for Human Rights and its

Youth Committee. 

2. To have parallel conferences to the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and related intolerance.

3. The United Nations should recognize youth from civil society as full participants.  

9

There will be a youth forum in Durban. This will be an important element of the work that will be done in Durban during the World Conference.  

Chair It is of great importance that young people get involved and are involved in the combat against racism. Let us proceed with Agenda Item 6, which is the `review of reports, studies and other documentation for the Preparatory Committee and the World Conference`. 

Special Rapporteur on Religious IntoleranceWe have submitted to the first Preparatory meeting a report. We would now like to present a study on racial discrimination, related intolerance and education. This paper has not yet been distributed. It is essential that the international community deal with the phenomena of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. Preventive measures should be taken. Education is a tool and a means to combat racism. The international community should attribute great importance to this.  

Special Rapporteur on Human Rights of MigrantsThe Commission on Human Rights welcomes the work of the Rapporteur linked to the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. The problems of migrants should be studied at the World Conference. The problem of racism regarding this group is often related to the fact that they are not nationals of a country. Therefore they are particular vulnerable. Namely women and children form a vulnerable group. The trafficking of persons is the worst from of violations of their rights. It is important that states penalize the people who commit these crimes. There is a serious responsibility for all states. Important is the recognition of the contribution made by migrants. The value of remittances by migrants to their home countries, which is of great importance to these home countries, should not be forgotten. The negative image of immigration needs to be combated. I call upon states, which have not done so, to ratify the International Convention on the Protection of Migrant workers and their families.  

Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD)During its session in March 2001 CERD studied the Draft Declaration and Programme of Action for the World Conference and has made several proposals. Racial Discrimination ought to be a matter of concern before becoming a matter of armed conflict; The instalment of adequate mechanisms in states have to be promoted; We recommend that criteria for early warning should be developed. We very much like to contribute to this; The Programme of Action amendments as made by CERD should be adopted; We recommend that the role of CERD, as a central mechanism in combating racism, should be strengthened. Since 1993 CERD has developed mechanisms of prevention by early warning. These measures would protect a lot of vulnerable groups. The World Conference should offer something more than hope for the future. It should also provide measures.

Human Rights Committee (HRC)HRC has members from the entire world. All members feel very strongly in combating racism. We are aware of the forms of Racism. The equality for humans and prohibition of discrimination runs through the whole document. The protection of minorities is part of our work. We have studied studies on minorities. We wish to make a contribution to the World Conference with a general statement on the struggle against racial discrimination in general. The new forms of racism alarm us. We shall continue to make every effort to combat racism and to have human rights fully respected.  

Member of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

10

Many countries affected by racism have very little will to combat it. All countries should admit to daily practices of Racism. The effective implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) is far from successful. The list of the groups concerned is extensive. The paper also deals with cultures beyond racism.

Chairperson We shall now proceed with agenda item 7, which is `the Draft Declaration and Programme of Action`. MexicoWe have requested the inclusion of many new paragraphs. We have also expressed the need to bring order in our work. Many paragraphs deal with similar issues. We should discuss paragraphs with similar issues as a group. We have our proposal on this in writing and will submit it to the Secretariat. We find it difficult that others do not support our idea. We call for dialogue and a rational approach of our work. 

ChairWe should consider the document as it stands and than move to the structure later on. On Friday morning we will make an assessment of the progress made so far. I recognize that there is an enormous amount of repetition in the draft. For considering the Preamble we will use the proposals made by the Group of 21. This Group met from the 23rd to 25th May 2001 consisting of four members of each regional group. The members of the Group of 21 were: Barbados, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal, Tunisia, Canada, France, Sweden, United States of America, Czech Republic, Croatia, Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia, Russian Federation, India, Iraq and Iran. The Republic of South Africa chaired the Group of 21.The Group decided to proceed with the consideration of the Preamble of the Draft Declaration by adopting the following approach: Clustering the paragraphs that belong together; Identifying duplicated language; Making concrete proposals to the Preparatory Committee on the best possible rationalization and structuring of the text. The Group decided to use as a basis for it’s clustering of the preamble of the Draft Declaration, a document prepared by Mexico in this regard.  On Paragraph 1, 2 and 3 the Group of 21 decided to insert these paragraphs as adopted by the Plenary of the Preparatory Committee.Are there any comments on paragraph 1 of the Preamble? No comments than the following text is adopted: 

PP 1Having met in Durban, South Africa, from 31 August to 7 September 200; 

Are there any comments on paragraph 2 of the Preamble?No comments, than the following text is adopted:

PP2 Expressing deep appreciation to the Government of South Africa for hosting this World Conference; 

Are there any comments on paragraph 3 of the Preamble?

CanadaWe accept the paragraph. However, it might be preferable to qualify the role of the NGO. The word `essential` has been deleted. We should at least add the word `positive` or `important` before the word `role`.  

Kenya

11

We have submitted language for this paragraph. But we cannot find it is not reflected in the text of the proposals document as made by the Secretariat.After the word `struggle of people of South Africa` we would like to add `against the institutionalised system of apartheid` and than continue the paragraph as it is.  

ChairAre there any comments on this proposal by Kenya? No comments, then consensus.  

AlgeriaWe agree with Canada, that a word needs to be added as to define the role of the NGOs. We suggest that either the word `positive` or important` is used. The word `essential` as in the original text is not appropriate to define the role of NGOs.  

ChairCanada, which word do you prefer in this case? 

CanadaWe prefer the word `important`.

EcuadorWe suggest a change in the order of the paragraph:  

`Drawing inspiration from the heroic struggle of the people of South Africa against the institutionalised system of apartheid for equality and justice under democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, recalling the important contribution to that struggle by the international community and in particular that of the people and governments of Africa, and noting the important role that non-governmental organizations played in that struggle and in ongoing efforts to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance`;

United States of AmericaWe are of the opinion that amendments and proposals to paragraph 3 of the Preamble, can minimize its intend. It is about the people of South Africa and therefore we should leave the paragraph as it is so that it does proper justice to the Preamble and the place where the WCAR is held.  

ArgentinaWe have the feeling that we are losing the primary objective to recognize the heroic struggle of the people of South Africa. We agree with Ecuador to change the order of the Paragraph.We also ask for grouping of the paragraphs that have the same issue. 

IranGiven the importance of the struggle by the people of South Africa, we should put the part on the role of NGOs in a separate paragraph.  By reading through the documents we have also come across the point that an important notion is missing. We have drawn up a new paragraph: 

`Recognizing and affirming that at the outset of the third millennium a global fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and all its abhorrent and evolving forms and manifestations is a matter of priority for the international community, and that the Conference offers unique and historical opportunity for an objective assessment and identification of the real dimensions of those devastating evils of humanity as well as the strengthening, enhancement of the global strife with a view to their total elimination`; 

This could be a Paragraph 3 or 4.  

12

ChairI propose to consider the new paragraph as a paragraph 3bis.

CubaIn paragraph 3 of the Preamble we propose to add the word `development` after `under democracy`. Without development one cannot achieve the goal of what one is working for. 

BrazilWe need to address the issue of procedure. We really need to go on a faster pace. If a text has been approved, than it has been approved by plenary and we move on. The proposal made by Iran contains different text than the current paragraph 3 of the Preamble and should therefore be regarded separately.  

ChileThere are two extremely important elements to consider:- The mobility of negotiation: Once a text has been approved, than there is no room for the introductions of new elements. - Concerning paragraph 3 of the Preamble: We should maintain the political spirit of this paragraph and support the proposal of Ecuador.  We also support the proposal made by Canada. 

United States of AmericaOut of caution, the original intend of the paragraph at hand is being deluded by amendments. We support the proposal of Ecuador as amended by Canada. Paragraph 3bis as proposed by Iran is a useful suggestion. We suggest that it is better to put it in the Declaration than in the Preamble.  

IranWe go along with the suggestion, but want specific identification of the place to put it. Given the nature of the paragraph, we propose that it is incorporated at the beginning of the Declaration as OP 1bis.  

United States of AmericaWe have no objection to moving it to OP 1bis.  

ChairWe do need to redo the verbs at the beginning of the paragraph. 

Sweden: on behalf of the European UnionWe need more time to go along with adoption of this proposal and propose that it is put in brackets in the meantime. We give our tentative support to the proposal of Ecuador.  

CubaWe support the proposal of Iran. We have no problem with the paragraph being either paragraph 3bis of the Preamble or if it is OP 1bis.  

Chair Are the words of paragraph 3 of the Preamble as amended accepted? I also want to ask Sweden for a position on the proposal made by Iran. 

IranWe have no objections to paragraph 3 of the Preamble. Only, the question of the division of paragraph 3 on the role of NGOs has not been addressed. We want this discussed. However, if the paragraph will stand as it is, than we have minor amendments to suggest.  

13

ChairApart of the Iran proposal to divide paragraph 3 of the Preamble in three sections, is there agreement on the paragraph? 

CanadaWe think that the paragraph fits together. Division of the paragraph would make the document even longer. The Preamble is already very long. So keep the paragraph as one paragraph.  

Sweden: on behalf of the European UnionWe support the suggestion to have one paragraph. We request that the word development is placed in brackets, because we want to refer to OP 1bis later on.

BrazilWe support Canada to have one paragraph. 

NigeriaWe agree to have the role of NGOs in one paragraph 3. However, we also have a slight amendment:

`Recalling in this context the important contribution to that struggle by the International Community and in particular the pivotal role of the government and people of South Africa`;  

ChairCan the members of the Preparatory Committee accept Nigeria’s proposal? Is there consensus on paragraph 3 as amended by Ecuador and Canada on the role of NGOs?Are there objections to the proposal of Nigeria? No objections. On the proposal of Cuba we have not yet reached consensus and it will therefore stay in brackets. It seems that there is consensus on paragraph 3 of the Preamble and it is therefore adopted.  

IranI have held up my flag for several minutes now. We still have the proposal to have two separate paragraphs. However, we go along, as not to stand in the way of consensus, but we do have small amendments to the paragraph.

Tuesday 22 May 2001 Morning Session

ChairAgenda item 3 on the accreditation of six NGOs was left pending. I would like to state that it is important that NGOs can participate. I suggest that we consider case by case of each of the NGOs in question. I am not asking for a debate, but brief general comments by Regional Co-ordinators are possible before we take on the formal discussion. 

KenyaThe African Group was not in the Bureau meeting that took the decision. We do not conform to the legal opinion and we do not agree with the decision taken. We don not want to bloc consensus, but we want our view and position of the Group on record.  

CubaWhen it comes to a vote we wish to have an explanation on the vote. We also endorse the view of Kenya on this matter. 

ChairTo postpone the subject to next Monday would mean that we have wasted two days on this subject. I propose to have the final vote now.

14

The first state to vote will be drawn. States can vote yes, which means that the objection made to the accreditation is rejected. States can vote no, which means that the objection to the accreditation of the NGO is sustained.  

AlgeriaCan we still give an explanation before the vote? 

ChairYes, before and after the vote on that particular vote. 

MexicoWe have repeatedly said to be in favour of the participation of all NGOs in this important process. We wish to highlight this important role of NGOs for the WCAR in Durban.However, we respect the decisions taken by the UN organisation on the accreditation of the six NGOs. Therefore we will vote in favour of the participation of all NGOs except the six NGOs rejected by the NGO committee.  

EcuadorWe share the views expressed by Chile and want to endorse the statement.  

CubaWe support the view of Kenya. However, today we are violating what has been set out in resolution 1996/31. We would like to state that having read the relevant information on the six NGOs, we fully support the objections made by the relevant countries. The objections raised are perfectly valid. The six NGOs should not be accredited for the WCAR. 

LibyaWe totally support what was stated by the delegation of Kenya. We are well aware of the role of NGOs and their need to participate. We have, however, some observations on this:- There seems to be a lack of democracy in the process - If a decision was to be taken it should have been taken in consensus by the Bureau - The legal opinion in this is clear and should remain. We agree to have a vote on this matter.  

IranWe want to add our voice to previous the speakers.We want our position on this matter registered. We are very reluctant to have a vote. The vote should be the last solution. We think that not all the solutions have been exhausted. Having a vote will not be a positive president to the future.There is a contradiction between what we are about to do and the guidelines on these matters. It is inconsistent with what the NGO Committee has done and what we are about to do.  

KenyaWe regret the decision of having a vote on this matter. We want issues under real consensus and not assumed consensus. We would also have liked more information on the matter.  

PakistanWe join the consensus to take immediate action on this issue. However, this Preparatory Committee does not respect resolution 1996/31. We also did not have adequate information on the matter.  

NigeriaWe regret to have to have a vote at this early stage of the meeting. We wonder why we do not abide by the legal decision made. We want to know who requested for this vote.  

15

ChairLets start the voting process. I want to make it clear that if objections are not challenged then there will be no vote. If the initial challenge by the government is challenged by another delegation, than we will have a vote. All possible ways to discuss this issue have been explored. We have decided to discuss this matter today. We could postpone but than we would still have to decide on the provisional measures. That takes us back to square one. Therefore, we will take the final decision on this matter today. The first NGO to discuss is the Asian Indigenous Peoples Pact. 

IranThe ambiguity and non-clarity are disturbing to us. We want to know who requested the vote. If no one has requested it than we should proceed discussing the Draft Declaration.  ChairI repeat:We will review case by case the six NGOs. If the initial challenge is not challenged by a delegation, than there will be no vote and the NGO will not be accredited. If there is a challenge than a delegation can ask for a vote.Is this now sufficiently clear to everyone? Thailand has the floor on the first NGO the Asian Indigenous Peoples Pact. 

ThailandIn our country NGOs are working closely with the government. We fully recognize the importance of participation of NGOs especially in the field of human rights. However, we do object to the participation of this particular NGO, since the NGO has not registered as an organisation to be active in Thailand. We cannot simply ignore that NGOs have to abide the law of our country.  

ChairIs there any opposition to this challenge? 

Sweden: on behalf of the European UnionWe support the recommendation of the NGO Committee to accredit this NGO. We therefore request for a vote.  

ChairThe result of the vote on the NGO Asian Indigenous Peoples Pact is:

40 votes for accreditation 38 against accreditation 34 abstentions 

Therefore the accreditation of the Asian Indigenous Peoples Pact is accepted. 

Tuesday, 22 May, Afternoon Session

The fourth plenary meeting of the preparatory committee starting with the considerations to accredit remaining five NGOs. The Asian Indigenous Peoples Pact was accredited earlier. 

MoroccoOur delegation would have loved to vote, but there was no documentation, so the delegation abstained. Although it is clear to us that we need the diversity and full participation of NGOs. 

TunisiaWe favour broad NGO participation. We abstained during the vote for not receiving sufficient information on NGO. 

16

The SecretariatThe next NGO to be considered is People Forum for Human Rights and Development, from Bhutan. 

BhutanGranting accreditation to organization, which has neither competence nor relevance, raises our objections. First, this is not Bhutanese organization, and it is not based in Bhutan. Second, the Secretary General of the NGO is not Bhutanese. Third, there are not Bhutanese refugees in India. In refugee camps in Nepal, the identity of these people had not yet been established. There are several categories of refugees in this camp. Next, this organization is strongly affiliated to Bhutan’s People Party, which is a “terrorist organization”. Last, the NGO was recently denied accreditation on UN Conference of least developed countries, and it placed some threats against Bhutanese mission in Geneva. 

Sweden, on behalf of the European UnionThe EU supports recommendation of the Secretariat in favour of accrediting People Forum for Human Rights and Development. The members of the EU will vote yes. 

CubaThe delegation of Cuba fully agrees with Bhutan. There is very little merit in the request. This organization questions international assistance being given to Bhutanese government. It questions all this in a politically dubious question. This is a political movement against Bhutanese government.

VotingThe NGO People Forum for Human Rights and Development was granted accreditation with 42 votes in favour, 32 against and 34 abstentions.  

Third NGO, the Tamil Centre for Human Rights, had its accreditation rejected by the preparatory committee with no objection to the challenge.  The fourth NGO, Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy was the next NGO considered for accreditation. 

Sweden, on behalf of the European UnionThe EU supports the recommendation in favour of accreditation of the Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy. The EU will vote yes in the support of it. 

ChinaThe World Conference Against Racism is an important event. The Chinese delegation hoped for consensus. We express our deep regrets the voting will take place. Dalai Lama has established this organization and its purpose is to split China. Tibet is a part of Chinese territory and we urge all delegations present to vote against. 

ArmeniaWe favour a broad participation, but since sufficient information was not allocated, we abstain for these reasons. 

CubaThis entity had been designed against the UN Charter, and we will vote against. 

IranWe will vote against NGO participation. 

Voting

17

The NGO Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy was accredited with forty-four votes in favour, thirty-seven against, thirty-one abstentions. 

The fifth NGO, Human Rights in China, was supported by the US delegation, since it is a well-known and respectable NGO. The US urged delegations to vote for accrediting. 

ChinaHuman Rights in China is headquartered in the United States and run mainly by the people who were punished and prosecuted by Chinese organs. The NGO organized illegal activities in China. It refers to Taiwan as the Republic of China. The NGO applied for consultative status with ECOSOC, but was rejected. The NGO participation has politicised. 

CubaWe are surprised by the US position. This NGO is an entity completely financed by the US government. 

IraqThis is politicised body, and we will vote against. 

VotingThe Human Rights in China was not accredited, since fifty states voted against, forty-five voted in favour, while seventeen abstained. 

The next NGO to be considered for the participation is International Campaign for Tibet. 

VotingAccreditation was granted to International Campaign for Tibet after forty-six states voted in favour, thirty-seven voted against, while twenty-nine abstained. 

ChinaReferring to Human Rights in China and two Tibetan organizations, we raised objections, and since parties could not reach consensus, the prepcom should use it as a ground to reject accreditation of these organizations 

VenezuelaWe want to give explanations for our voting. The delegation of Venezuela is obliged to follow NGO committee guidance. The information provided by the Secretariat is insufficient, so we voted against. 

(Note: The details of the voting for NGO accreditation can be found in UN doc. A/CONF.189/PC.2/L.1 (distributed on the last day of the PrepCom; not yet available on the OHCHR website).)

The delegation of South Africa gave briefing for Durban. It welcomed the opportunity to present logistical information on the WCAR. The government of South Africa established the National Preparation Committee. It includes various institutions, SANGOCO, religious groups and media establishment.  

NGO Forum, organized by SANGOCO will precede the WCAR and it will be held on 28 August in Durban. All information on WCAR are available at www.racism.gov.za. 

Tuesday 22 May 2001 Evening Session

ChairParagraph 3 of the Preamble has been adopted with consensus and reads as follows: 

18

PP 3Drawing inspiration from the heroic struggle of the people of South Africa against the institutionalised system of apartheid as well as equality and justice under democracy, [development], the rule of law and respect for human rights, recalling in this context the important contribution to that struggle of the international community and, in particular, the pivotal role of the people and governments of Africa, and noting the important role that non-governmental organizations played in that struggle and in ongoing efforts to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;

The delegation of Iran had a last comment just before the end of the last Session. To our understanding they had agreed to the consensus despite their proposal to have the text on NGOs in a separate paragraph. 

IranWe will not insist on our proposal. However, we do have minor amendments to the paragraph. This was apparently not clear to Madam Chair. I would like to introduce the amendment that I have to the text so that it can be inserted in the existing paragraph 3 of the Preamble. I suggest the addition of `the role and contribution of all actors of civil society`. So the scope will be broadened to civil society and the text will than refer to NGOs.  

ChairI have taken note of the amendment. I would like to remind delegates that once a text has been adopted, no new elements could be introduced. If time permits a second reading can be done. However, at this moment once a text is adopted no new elements can be introduced. I would now like to ask for the opinion of the Preparatory Committee on the proposal of Iran. Can the Preparatory Committee accept the proposed amendments of Iran?  

Sweden: on behalf of the European UnionWe are very strong supporters of civil society. It is a question of principal to open this text at this point after adoption. Not withstanding our general support, we want to move on to the next paragraph and deal with the made amendments as suggested by Iran at a later stage.

IranWe comply with the set rules, but the important matter is that we disagree with the course of intervention. I had my flag raised when the chair said to have reached consensus. So as far as my delegation is concerned, there is no consensus reached. Also the nature of the amendments does not seem problematic to any delegation and thus we want it to be included in the text.  

ChairIran did take the floor several times. Reviewing my notes, I do not agree with Iran on this matter. The text had been adopted before the intervention of Iran. Iran said to go along with the adoption. I am not opening the text for discussion at this stage in order to progress with the work at hand.  

Iran The consensus you are referring to is that we agreed to have one separate paragraph, but we made clear that we would have amendments to the text.

ChairI ask at this point for the opinion of the Preparatory Committee. 

The Russian FederationThe whole Preparatory Committee shares your wish to make headway. However, we do not agree on the consensus on paragraph 3. One word is in brackets and there were amendments made. It is not a matter of principal. The amendments enrich the text. So long discussions on this matter are not necessary. 

19

ChairIn paragraph 3 there is a word in brackets, because there was no consensus on it. We agreed to have it in brackets.  

CubaWe are concerned with the method of work. If there are no objections to the proposal of Iran than let us accept it. Clearly there are objections to having parallel sessions but with the way we are conducting our work at the present it is will be very difficult to get the drafting done. Some issues can only be settled at the highest level in Durban South Africa. It is difficult to get anywhere with so many delegations. We suggest having the parallel sessions to proceed with our work.  

BrazilWe have respect for the way you handle these meetings Madam Chair.  We agree that we have indeed adopted paragraph 3. It is a settled matter. We have no difficulties with the language as proposed by Iran, but it is a matter of principal that once the text is adopted we should proceed.

On the statement of Cuba, we share their concerns. We need to device a method of work to expedite our work.

ChairWe had a meeting with the bureau to decide on the future shape of our work. We will have another meeting on the 23 May 2001 to discuss how we can best proceed with our work.  

Mexico, on behalf of GRULACWe fully share the concern expressed by Cuba and Brazil and we would like to add that there is still time enough to be responsible and self- critical in this stage. Our group has made a very clear proposal earlier on to group paragraphs together that deal with the same issue.

Sweden, on behalf of the European UnionWe are interested in the proposal by Mexico. We are also interested in the outcome of the Bureau meeting on the 23 May 2001. We are anxious to make progress. We understand that once a text is adopted it cannot be reopened at this stage. However, we ask for proposed text of Iran to be included in paragraph 3. 

ChairThis will be an exception to the rule. 

PakistanI thank Sweden for their flexibility on this matter. We have no comments on the proposals made on Monday 21 May 2001 because we were not present. The understanding of my delegation is that a paragraph on which consensus has been reached, does not have brackets. I will not open the discussion on the paragraph but in the future my delegation will not accept nay form of consensus if there are brackets in a paragraph. I would also like to ask the chair to recognize a delegation’s flag before deciding that there is consensus.  

ChairThe Preparatory Committee accepts the proposal of Iran. We have now concluded our consideration of paragraph 3 of the Preamble. 

MexicoAmong our proposal of having clusters of paragraphs, there is also a mention of paragraph 9 and 9bis1. Both these paragraphs refer exclusively to the civil society.  

20

PakistanWe tend to agree with Mexico to attend to different issues in clusters. This prevents us from having the same discussion over and over again throughout the consideration of the document.  

IndiaWe suggest going paragraph by paragraph to make at least at the present time some progress. We can discuss the matter of methods of work tomorrow during the Bureau meeting. 

BarbadosWe had decided yesterday to do paragraph by paragraph. But now proposals are made to do it differently. What are we going to do the rest of this evening session? The Chair should decide on how to spend the rest of this evening session. We should carry out this discussion perhaps now so that we can begin the session of tomorrow morning in a much more sufficient way.

 ChairThe Bureau had not reached agreement on how to go about the meetings. So, the Secretariat decided to have a plenary session. If we continue as we do now, we will run against the wall. We have only ten days. We are now nearly at the end of the second day and are still discussing the third paragraph of the Preamble. Barbados has suggested to discuss all the proposals made on the method of work. We can also discuss it in the regional groups and have them come up with a view on these proposals and how to proceed. We can also continue the current method.

MexicoWe have no problem with paragraph 3 as such. We ask the other delegations to consider our proposal on having clusters of paragraphs to discuss. 

ChairIt is up to the Preparatory Committee to decide on the proposal of Grulac. I am quit willing to accept a better way of proceeding. Have delegations had the time to read the proposal of Grulac and compare it with other proposals? 

CubaWe would like to comment on what Barbados said.There is no agreement on how to precede our work, but after two days we all agree that we need a different approach. We should use the rest of the evening in hearing views so that we can meet tomorrow morning and take immediate decisions on this. We cannot wait for a Bureau meeting. The cluster idea of Grulac is a good idea, but we should not use our next meetings to cluster. This needs to be done before hand. We should also start on time with the sessions. Meetings of the Bureau should not coincide with the sessions. Also silence can be seen as consent on adoption of paragraphs. We appeal to everyone to be flexible. We have to have a final document.  

United KingdomWe also want to speed up the process. We have discussed the possible parallel sessions in the Western Group. The proposal of Grulac has not yet been discussed. We agree with the chair to continue with the text tonight and tomorrow consult in Bureau on how to proceed.  

ChairI would like to close discussions on paragraph 3. Have we reached consensus on paragraph 3? Than the paragraph is now adopted by consensus and reads as follows:  

PP 3Drawing inspiration from the heroic struggle of the people of South Africa against the institutionalised system of apartheid as well as equality and justice under democracy, [development], the rule of law

21

and respect for human rights, recalling in this context the important contribution to that struggle of the international community and, in particular, the pivotal role of the people and governments of Africa, and noting the important role that different actors of civil society including non-governmental organizations played in that struggle and in ongoing efforts to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; Let us proceed with the proposals on the methods of work. 

BarbadosThe Bureau should meet as soon as possible and even before tomorrow afternoon.  

 ChairI suggest that delegations discuss proposals on the method of work in the regional groups.

Wednesday 23 May 2001

No Morning Session 

Wednesday, 23 May, Afternoon Session

The sixth plenary session started by the apologies of Madam Chairperson, on behalf of the Bureau, for not starting promptly. Meetings of the Bureau and regional groups were necessary regarding the organization of the work of the Committee. The Chairperson further expressed her beliefs the delay was worth it, since the Bureau took a decision, a consensus, on the issue or organization of the work. Many delegations in its statements had said the progress had not been made, and Madam Chairperson underlined they were right, nothing had been done. The Bureau reached following decisions: The restricted group will be set up. It will comprise of twenty-one members, four from each region and it will be chaired by South Africa. This group will cluster together paragraphs similar in nature of the draft declaration and draft programme of action. It will also cluster together the paragraphs based on subjects and ideas. Proposals will be submitted to the preparatory committee, including suggestions to organize these 109 pages, to rationalize the text in more reasonable volume. On the basis of this work of the restricted group, as of Monday the preparatory committee suggested to divide up in two working groups. First working group will deal with the declaration, and the second one with the programme of action. The two groups will report to plenary prepcom and whenever necessary will make possible to progress in a transparent manner. The composition of the restricted group (Group of 21):(Chair) South Africa; (GRULAC) Barbados, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico; (African Group) Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal and Tunisia; (Western group) Canada, France, Sweden, and the United States; (Eastern European Group) Czech Republic, Croatia, the FYROM and Russian Federation.; (Asian group) India, Iran, Pakistan and Iraq. Regional group co-ordinators submitted the list of the countries that will participate, and the decision was on consensus. 

IsraelWe need a clarification with regard to participation in restricted group. It is our understanding the work will be fully transparent particularly to the states that are excluded from regional groups and cannot be represented. Madam Chairperson explained the Bureau proposed this method of work, on the basis outlined earlier, to make proposals to plenary. At the moment, there are 109 pages, everything is scattered. The mandate of the restricted group is to rationalize the text. Madam Chairperson further expressed her confidence that in the South African delegation.  

22

PakistanThank you Madam Chair for the proposal. It is a very good one. Regional coordinator has expressed the support of the Asian Group. It is our understanding that small working group will only be making proposals and suggestions, and it has no mandate to negotiate. Second, the work will be transparent, and both groups are open to NGOs and the press. We further have two requests. First, if any voting takes place, the delegations can move so they are not misrepresented. In voting, each delegation is to be present. Second, if Secretariat can inform the prepcom of the hours used to discuss substantive and other matters in plenary. We need the statistics of each and every hour spent of the plenary in the Bureau. Madam Chairperson further pointed out both plenary groups will be fully transparent with NGOs, intergovernmental organizations and all the members of international community who are interested in preparatory process. The Bureau will no longer meet during the Plenary and, as of Monday, there are two parallel plenary meetings. The plenary of prepcom will meet when the two working groups make their reports on plenary. It will ensure that everyone has the same information on the progress.  IraqWe participated and presented our suggestions and proposals. We will continue with contribution, with respect to all members of international community to achieve consensus. Iraq has accepted its position and it will not change its policies. Some of the delegations expressed surprise in a strange manner. 

VenezuelaWe want to congratulate to the Bureau for having reached consensus.  

Madam ChairpersonOn Friday, 25 May, the group will come up with the outcome. Then we will set up two parallel groups for Monday morning.

Thursday 24 May 2001

No Morning and Afternoon Session

Friday Afternoon, 25 May, 2001

Chairperson She expressed her gratitude to the Bureau and the group of 21 countries for the work done. The Bureau decided that, as of Monday, 28 May, there would be two plenary groups. H.E. Ambassador of France will chair one group, working on the Draft Declaration, while H.E. Ambassador Seboya of Brazil will chair the group working on the Draft Programme of Action. These two groups will meet in parallel sessions. 

South AfricaThe group of 21 has produced the work to assist the plenary and the working group, specifically on the Declaration. The group clustered all preamble paragraphs and identified duplications and made concrete proposals to the preparatory committee. It is our belief this document will form a solid basis. Proposals were made to merge paragraphs together, and to restructure and rationalize the document. Delegations of Mexico, Brazil, Canada and Sweden clustered entire Programme of Action.  

Friday 1 June 2001 Afternoon Session (Summary of the meeting)

23

The PrepCom adopted draft reports on its second session as amended (UN Doc. A/CONF:189/PC.2/L.1 and Add.1).

The following draft decisions were also adopted by consensus:

Draft Decision PC.2/1: Mandate of the Group of 21

'The Group of 21 will be composed of four representatives of each regional groups plus South Africa. Its mandate will be advisory in nature, and it will not have the power to negotiate. It will be charged with the following tasks: 81) to make proposals for further reorganization of the text including determining the location of paragraphs; (2) to make proposals for merging or consolidating paragraphs, (39 to make proposals for deleting paragraphs; and (4) to make proposals to make the text more compact and workable to facilitate the negotiations. The group of 21 would be subject to the authority of the Preparatory Committee meeting in plenary. '

(Note: the Group of 21 is to meet for a few weeks following the closure of the 2nd session of the PrepCom)

Draft Decision PC.2/2: NGO accreditation

'The Preparatory Committee for the World Conference against Racism (…) decides that the Secretariat shall submit to States applications from non-governmental organizations for accreditation to the World Conference by 2 July 2001, and to permit provisional accreditation by the Bureau on the same basis, pursuant to the provisions of the Economic and Social Council Resolution 1996/31 and decision PC.1/5 of the first session of the Preparatory Committee. In the event that a Governent raises questions concerning the accreditation of a non-governmental organization, the final decision on those cases shall be taken by the Preparatory Committee at its third session in plenary, in accordance with the standard process set out in Council resolution 1996/31.'

Draft Decision PC.2/3: Third session of the Preparatory Committee

'At its 9th meeting, on 1 June 2001, the Preparatory Committee decided, without a vote, to recommend that the General Assembly authorize it to hold a third session in Geneva from 30 July to 10 August 2001, for a total of 10 working days, with Conference Services being provided to hold two simultaneous meetings during this period.'

Draft Decision PC.2/4: Provisional agenda for the third session of the Preparatory Committee

'At its 9th meeting on 1 June 2001, the Preparatory Committee decided, without a vote, to adopt a provisional agenda for its third session. The provisional agenda contains the following agenda items.

1. Opening of the session2. Adoption of the agenda3. Organization of work4. Review of reports, studies and other documentation for the Preparatory Committee and the World

Conference5. Draft declaration and programme of action6. Provisional agenda for the World Conference, practical issues7. Organization of the work of the World Conference and other matters8. Adoption of the report of the Preparatory Committee to the General Assembly

(end)

24